Recovery partition

  • Thread starter Thread starter Howard Brazee
  • Start date Start date
H

Howard Brazee

Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.

Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.

I did notice that My Computer shows a recovery partition. I've never
seen that elsewhere, and wonder if it has something to do with its
glacial speeds.
 
Slow PC - Things to check and do.
#1: A process that's loading down your CPU:
It could be a sub-process or application that's running in the background
and taking all the CPU resources, which could be the cause of your PC
running slow.
To find and display what could be the problem try Process Explorer:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/SystemInformation/ProcessExplorer.mspx

Note: Once you have Process Explorer installed and running:
In the taskbar select View and check 'Show Process Tree' and
'Show Lower Pane' options.
Then expand the process named 'Explorer' (click on the + sign)
In the column on the left named 'CPU', look for any high CPU usage.
Next click on the CPU column to sort the processes by %CPU usage
(Highest to Lowest).
Move the mouse cursor over any process, you should see a popup with some
detailed info.
Then mouse over the process that's using most or all the CPU %.
Then click on that process to highlight it,
Now that it's highlighted, right click and from the options listed select:
'Search Online'
This should display what out there on the web about that process.
You can also double click on any process to open up a more detailed
'Properties' window.
Note: some entries like Explorer, System/Services, and
Svchost entries may need to be expanded to show the detail (sub processes),
in this case click on the + located to the left of the entry.

An alternate method using Process Explorer is to double click
on the Graph just below the Menu bar.
This will open the 'System Information' window, which has a larger display
of all three graphs.
Move your mouse over any spike in the CPU Usage graph to see what
process/application or service was the cause of the spike.

#2: Stuff that loads during boot or logon and then is always running in the
background:
If you want to list and explore what may be the cause then:
Try Autoruns from the MS Windows SysInternals site:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/ProcessesAndThreads/Autoruns.mspx

AutoRuns will show/list all apps/etc. that load/run when you first boot
(Boot Execute tab),
when you logon (Logon tab) and other programs that load
(grouped by labeled tabs) for easy viewing.
It also provides the ability to selectively allows you to stop any program
(use with care) that you don't want to load.
You can undo any changes you have made.
Note: To get additional details on an item in the list you may need to
highlight the item (right click) and use the 'Search Online' option to get
the details, especially useful for the more obscure items in the list.

#3: Viruses
Viruses and malware can also cause your PC to slowdown or malfunction.
Malke has an excellent set of instructions on what to do:
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware

#4: To much crap on the hard drive:
Take a look at CCleaner as a tool to remove Internet history info, cookies,
temp files, auto complete and other junk.
In the 'Windows' tab listing check the item types you want deleted.
Note: Do not use the registry cleaning option!!!
Also available is customization, see Options/Custom to add any
other/additional folders you want files deleted from.
http://www.ccleaner.com/

#5: Defragment your mother's hard drive.

JS


"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:secq44hf06ng8m8o20a83slqg3iku42ef7@4ax.com...
> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>
> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.
>
> I did notice that My Computer shows a recovery partition. I've never
> seen that elsewhere, and wonder if it has something to do with its
> glacial speeds.
 
Howard Brazee wrote:
> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>
> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.
>
> I did notice that My Computer shows a recovery partition. I've never
> seen that elsewhere, and wonder if it has something to do with its
> glacial speeds.


That partition is there in case your mother needs to reinstall the operating
system,most venders now do not give you a disk for reinstallation instead
they put it in a separate partition.DON"T mess with it.

As far as the slowness goes scan for malware.Here is a good free one to use.
http://www.superantispyware.com/download.html

--
Mike Pawlak
 
No, the recovery partition has nothing to do with it. In my experience, it
is almost always a lack of the proper amount of RAM combined with to much
crap running at startup. (Usually a bunch of trialware programs that came
with the computer.) How muach RAM does the machine have?
Louis

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:secq44hf06ng8m8o20a83slqg3iku42ef7@4ax.com...
> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>
> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.
>
> I did notice that My Computer shows a recovery partition. I've never
> seen that elsewhere, and wonder if it has something to do with its
> glacial speeds.
 
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:01:48 -0700, "3c273" <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>No, the recovery partition has nothing to do with it. In my experience, it
>is almost always a lack of the proper amount of RAM combined with to much
>crap running at startup. (Usually a bunch of trialware programs that came
>with the computer.) How muach RAM does the machine have?


I don't know, I don't get there that often.
 
On Jun 9, 12:01 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:01:48 -0700, "3c273" <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >No, the recovery partition has nothing to do with it. In my experience, it
> >is almost always a lack of the proper amount of RAM combined with to much
> >crap running at startup. (Usually a bunch of trialware programs that came
> >with the computer.) How muach RAM does the machine have?

>
> I don't know, I don't get there that often.


Well, that's probably the problem. Too much crap in the hallway, or
the hallway isn't big enough.

(hallway=RAM)
 
Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>
> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.


Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
taxing?

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
 
On 9 Jun 2008 17:08:02 -0500, Plato <|@|.|> wrote:

>Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
>taxing?


Everybody tells me how dangerous it is to not keep caught up.
 
How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
taxing? That simply is not true..
"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
news:484da95a$0$9756$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
>> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
>> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>>
>> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
>> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.

>
> Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
> taxing?
>
> --
> http://www.bootdisk.com/
 
Of course it's true! Each and every successive Windows operating system
requires more power to run and when installed on identical older
computers the older versions tend to run faster, that isn't hard to
prove and the facts are published and printed by Microsoft in the
minimum system requirements for each operating system. However, along
with the more demanding requirements of the newer operating systems the
hardware is constantly evolving to meet the requirements, not to mention
that some of the new hardware may not run well if at all with the older
operating systems. Don't expect lighting speed if you install a newer
operating system on an old computer, NT 4.0 installed on a P667 with
128MB of RAM was an extremely fast computer in it's heydays, the term
glacial comes to mind if you install Windows XP on the same machine!

John

Unknown wrote:

> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
> taxing? That simply is not true..
> "Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
> news:484da95a$0$9756$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>
>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>>>Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
>>>machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
>>>than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>>>
>>>Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
>>>spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.

>>
>>Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
>>taxing?
>>
>>--
>>http://www.bootdisk.com/

>
>
>
 
The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
out on the keyboard:

> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
> taxing? That simply is not true..



If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in
RAM, video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That
alone proves it.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
It's a case of the chicken or the egg.
By the time Windows 7 is released the hardware that was available when Vista
was first released will look a little long in the tooth.

JS

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:i_v3k.7268$uE5.540@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
> taxing? That simply is not true..
> "Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
> news:484da95a$0$9756$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>
>>> Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
>>> machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
>>> than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>>>
>>> Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
>>> spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.

>>
>> Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
>> taxing?
>>
>> --
>> http://www.bootdisk.com/

>
>
 
I make extensive use of Virtual Machines that extend from Server 2008
all the way back to Windows 95. If you discount the resident AV running
the quiescent memory foot print of each is:
Windows NT 4.0 95 Megabytes
Windows 2000 203 Megabytes
Windows XP Pro 320 Megabytes
Windows Vista 467 Megabytes *No Windows Search
Windows Srv-08 384 Megabytes *No Windows Search

It appears that each succeeding version does raise the basic memory
footprint for running the OS.


"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:ezMarcwyIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
> out on the keyboard:
>
>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>> taxing? That simply is not true..

>
>
> If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in RAM,
> video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That alone
> proves it.
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
Oops! My apology. I interpreted the statement (apparently erroneously) to
mean an update such as SP3 and not as
an OS update such as WIN 98 to XP-------------sorry.
"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:u8jypbwyIHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Of course it's true! Each and every successive Windows operating system
> requires more power to run and when installed on identical older computers
> the older versions tend to run faster, that isn't hard to prove and the
> facts are published and printed by Microsoft in the minimum system
> requirements for each operating system. However, along with the more
> demanding requirements of the newer operating systems the hardware is
> constantly evolving to meet the requirements, not to mention that some of
> the new hardware may not run well if at all with the older operating
> systems. Don't expect lighting speed if you install a newer operating
> system on an old computer, NT 4.0 installed on a P667 with 128MB of RAM
> was an extremely fast computer in it's heydays, the term glacial comes to
> mind if you install Windows XP on the same machine!
>
> John
>
> Unknown wrote:
>
>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>> taxing? That simply is not true..
>> "Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in message
>> news:484da95a$0$9756$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
>>
>>>Howard Brazee wrote:
>>>
>>>>Last year my mother had to replace her computer - she got an eMachines
>>>>machine with a celeron D processor. Her computer is much slower
>>>>than her old machine which was cheap several years earlier.
>>>>
>>>>Everything is slow, slow, slow. I was at her house yesterday and
>>>>spent a couple of hours installing XP service pack 3.
>>>
>>>Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
>>>taxing?
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.bootdisk.com/

>>
>>
>>

>
 
Please read response to John John.
"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:ezMarcwyIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
> out on the keyboard:
>
>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>> taxing? That simply is not true..

>
>
> If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in RAM,
> video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That alone
> proves it.
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:46 AM, and on a whim, R. McCarty
pounded out on the keyboard:

> I make extensive use of Virtual Machines that extend from Server 2008
> all the way back to Windows 95. If you discount the resident AV running
> the quiescent memory foot print of each is:
> Windows NT 4.0 95 Megabytes
> Windows 2000 203 Megabytes
> Windows XP Pro 320 Megabytes
> Windows Vista 467 Megabytes *No Windows Search
> Windows Srv-08 384 Megabytes *No Windows Search
>
> It appears that each succeeding version does raise the basic memory
> footprint for running the OS.
>
>
> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:ezMarcwyIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
>> out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>>> taxing? That simply is not true..

>>
>> If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in RAM,
>> video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That alone
>> proves it.
>>

>
>


I hope you meant to reply to "Unknown", as your response was saying the
same thing I stated.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
Memory installed in a high end PC costing more than $3,000
1998 - 128MB 100MHz-SDRAM
2001 - 256MB Rambus 400 MHz RDRAM Memory
2004 - 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz Memory
2007 - 4GB 667MHz Dual-Channel DDR2 SDRAM

JS

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:%23VdW9iwyIHA.3664@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I make extensive use of Virtual Machines that extend from Server 2008
> all the way back to Windows 95. If you discount the resident AV running
> the quiescent memory foot print of each is:
> Windows NT 4.0 95 Megabytes
> Windows 2000 203 Megabytes
> Windows XP Pro 320 Megabytes
> Windows Vista 467 Megabytes *No Windows Search
> Windows Srv-08 384 Megabytes *No Windows Search
>
> It appears that each succeeding version does raise the basic memory
> footprint for running the OS.
>
>
> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:ezMarcwyIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
>> out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>>> taxing? That simply is not true..

>>
>>
>> If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in
>> RAM, video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That
>> alone proves it.
>>
>> --
>> Terry R.
>>
>> ***Reply Note***
>> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
>> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

>
>
 
Yes, it was an out-of-sequence reply.
I'll make a mental note to click the correct mgs. next time.

"Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
news:%23gJHGOxyIHA.4876@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:46 AM, and on a whim, R. McCarty pounded
> out on the keyboard:
>
>> I make extensive use of Virtual Machines that extend from Server 2008
>> all the way back to Windows 95. If you discount the resident AV running
>> the quiescent memory foot print of each is:
>> Windows NT 4.0 95 Megabytes
>> Windows 2000 203 Megabytes
>> Windows XP Pro 320 Megabytes
>> Windows Vista 467 Megabytes *No Windows Search
>> Windows Srv-08 384 Megabytes *No Windows Search
>>
>> It appears that each succeeding version does raise the basic memory
>> footprint for running the OS.
>>
>>
>> "Terry R." <F1Com@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:ezMarcwyIHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> The date and time was 6/10/2008 7:13 AM, and on a whim, Unknown pounded
>>> out on the keyboard:
>>>
>>>> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
>>>> taxing? That simply is not true..
>>>
>>> If each successive release wasn't more taxing, why would increases in
>>> RAM, video display, hard disk space, and minimum CPU, be required? That
>>> alone proves it.
>>>

>>
>>

>
> I hope you meant to reply to "Unknown", as your response was saying the
> same thing I stated.
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> >Why would you put XP3 on a slow machine, as every MS OS upgrade is more
> >taxing?

>
> Everybody tells me how dangerous it is to not keep caught up.


OnStar gets customers by FEAR advertisements. FEAR us the easiest way to
get business.


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
 
Unknown wrote:
>
> How can you, without supporting facts, state that every MS OS is more
> taxing? That simply is not true..


What rock have you been hiding under for the last 15 years???


--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
 
Back
Top